Measuring Parenting Throughout Adolescence: Measurement Invariance Across Informants, Mean Level, and Differential Continuity

Abstract

This study examined the structural validity of the parenting concept throughout adolescence. First, we examined whether an established five-dimension parenting model including support, proactive control, punitive control, harsh punitive control, and psychological control, showed longitudinal invariance across time (i.e., early, middle, and late adolescence) and measurement invariance across informants (i.e., mothers, fathers, and adolescents). Second, patterns of continuity and discontinuity in these dimensions were examined from the perspective of the different informants. In a four-wave accelerated longitudinal study with 1,111 adolescents and their parents, a multigroup structural equation modelling showed partial scalar invariance across adolescence and across informants. Subsequent growth modelling indicated that parenting was relatively stable over time and that similar patterns were present for mother, father, and adolescent ratings of parenting. Future research on associations between parenting and adolescent development can build on the findings of this study, given that comparing perspectives on parenting by different informants and over time seems to be valid.

Is Self-Compassion Universal? Support for the Measurement Invariance of the Self-Compassion Scale Across Populations

“…Also, as put by Marsh (2007; see also, Heene et al, 2011; Perry et al, 2015), strictly adhering to any cutoff values without substantive interpretations could lead to biased interpretations and erroneous conclusions. Therefore, given the complexity of our sample (i.e., multiple groups) and the complexity of the measurement model (i.e., bifactor-ESEM), similar to Scherer et al (2016), we relied on the cutoff values aforementioned as rough guidelines instead of golden rules, and small deviations (up to an additional Δ of .005) in only one of the fit statistics were considered acceptable (see also Van Heel et al, 2019). It is also worth noting that the TLI and the RMSEA (but not CFI) are corrected for parsimony (i.e., more parsimonious models can have better TLI and RMSEA values than less parsimonious ones) which has major importance given that more parameters are estimated in ESEM than in CFA (Marsh et al, 2009; Morin et al, 2020).…”

Investigating the interplay between parenting dimensions and styles, and the association with adolescent outcomes

“…Punitive and harsh punishment are both reactive in nature, because they follow adolescent behaviour that is considered undesirable by the parent. Both dimensions are punitive in nature, but harsh punishment implies a physical component [26,27]. Reactive behavioural control has been shown to predict academic underperformance [28] and externalising problems [29].…”

Assessment framework of the OECD Study on Social and Emotional Skills

“…Therefore, accurately translating questions into each local language is inadequate as the people responding must understand the questions in the same way as intended in the source version (Hui and Trandis, 1985[268]; Van de Vijver and Leung, 2001 [269]; Kankaraš and Moors, 2010[108]). As noted by Van de Vijver and Tanzer (2004[270]), "In every cross-cultural study, the question as to whether test scores obtained in different cultural populations can be interpreted in the same way across these populations has to be dealt with" (p. 119 [270]). Implementing the same assessment instruments across participating cities and countries in the Study does not, by itself, ensure that obtained estimates of social and emotional skills are directly comparable.…”